The insurer's liability to pay compensation to third parties in motor vehicle accident cases is not affected by the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license, provided that the insurer can proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/2nd and 3rd respondents insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2011 wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Mr. B. Gopal Singh(herein after referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2008 at 6.00 a.m. on N.H.7 road near a temple at Chinnatekur village.

2. The appellants, R7 and R1 to R6 are hereinafter referred to as R2, R3, R1 and petitioners/claimants, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal in brief is that first petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 to 5 are children and petitioner No.6 is mother of the deceased, who was working as police constable in Ulindakonda Police Station and was getting a salary of Rs.19,525/- who also undergone Head Constable training and was waiting for promotion as Head Constable. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 23.11.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. on N.H.7 near Ramalayam temple at Chinnatekur village, while the deceased was crossing the road, the first respondent being owner cum driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-21-P-7381 and AP-21-T-2396 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. They submit that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which insured with respondents 2 and 3. They claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on various heads.

4. The first respondent driver of offending vehicle remained ex parte and not chosen to contest the case.

5. The third respondent – insurance company filed counter denying the averments in the petition. It is the contention of the third respondent that there was no negligence on the part of R1, but accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. They submit that R1 had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident, thereby owner of the vehicle violated terms and conditions of the policy, due to that they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-21-P-7381 and AP-21-T-2396?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of petitioners-claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined, Exs.B1, B2 and X1 to X6 were marked.

8. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and it is also directed the third respondent to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/R2 and R3 insurance company has preferred the present appeal stating that judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submit that the Tribunal ought not to have granted pay and recovery as they have proved that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as driver of offending vehicle had no valid driving licence.

They pray to allow the appeal.

10. I have heard both sides.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, who got driving licence to drive auto rickshaw non-tr